BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients lack capacity for decisions about research participation. Consent to enrol these patients in studies is typically obtained from substitute decision-makers. OBJECTIVE: To present strategies that may optimise the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers for participation of critically ill patients in trials. We use examples from a randomised trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (PROTECT, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143). METHODS:3764 patients were randomised, with an informed consent rate of 82%; 90% of consents were obtained from substitute decision-makers. North American PROTECT research coordinators attended three meetings to discuss enrolment: (1) Trial start-up (January 2006); (2) Near trial closure (January 2010); and (3) Post-publication (April 2011). Data were derived from slide presentations, field notes from break-out groups and plenary discussions, then analysed inductively. RESULTS: We derived three phases for the informed consent process: (1) Preparation for the Consent Encounter; (2) The Consent Encounter; and (3) Follow-up to the Consent Encounter. Specific strategies emerged for each phase: Phase 1 (four strategies); Phase 2 (six strategies); and Phase 3 (three strategies). CONCLUSION: We identified 13 strategies that may improve the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers and be generalisable to other settings and studies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Critically illpatients lack capacity for decisions about research participation. Consent to enrol these patients in studies is typically obtained from substitute decision-makers. OBJECTIVE: To present strategies that may optimise the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers for participation of critically illpatients in trials. We use examples from a randomised trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (PROTECT, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143). METHODS: 3764 patients were randomised, with an informed consent rate of 82%; 90% of consents were obtained from substitute decision-makers. North American PROTECT research coordinators attended three meetings to discuss enrolment: (1) Trial start-up (January 2006); (2) Near trial closure (January 2010); and (3) Post-publication (April 2011). Data were derived from slide presentations, field notes from break-out groups and plenary discussions, then analysed inductively. RESULTS: We derived three phases for the informed consent process: (1) Preparation for the Consent Encounter; (2) The Consent Encounter; and (3) Follow-up to the Consent Encounter. Specific strategies emerged for each phase: Phase 1 (four strategies); Phase 2 (six strategies); and Phase 3 (three strategies). CONCLUSION: We identified 13 strategies that may improve the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers and be generalisable to other settings and studies.
Authors: C J Evans; E Yorganci; P Lewis; J Koffman; K Stone; I Tunnard; B Wee; W Bernal; M Hotopf; I J Higginson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Erin F Carlton; Erin Ice; Ryan P Barbaro; Lee Kampuis; Marc Moss; Derek C Angus; Valerie M Banner-Goodspeed; Adit A Ginde; Michelle N Gong; Colin K Grissom; Peter C Hou; David T Huang; Catherine Terri Lee Hough; Daniel S Talmor; B Taylor Thompson; Donald M Yealy; Mick P Couper; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 4.298
Authors: Nick Daneman; Asgar H Rishu; Wei Xiong; Sean M Bagshaw; Deborah J Cook; Peter Dodek; Richard Hall; Anand Kumar; Francois Lamontagne; Francois Lauzier; John C Marshall; Claudio M Martin; Lauralyn McIntyre; John Muscedere; Steven Reynolds; Henry T Stelfox; Robert A Fowler Journal: Trials Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kimberley Lewis; Sarah Culgin; Roman Jaeschke; Dan Perri; Corry Marchildon; Kelly Hassall; Thomas Piraino; Lehana Thabane; Yousef Almubarak; Mohammed S Alshahrani; Bram Rochwerg; Bandar Baw; Wojciech Szczeklik; Tim Karachi; Waleed Alhazzani Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nick Daneman; Asgar H Rishu; Ruxandra L Pinto; Yaseen M Arabi; Deborah J Cook; Richard Hall; Shay McGuinness; John Muscedere; Rachael Parke; Steven Reynolds; Benjamin Rogers; Yahya Shehabi; Robert A Fowler Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Waleed Alhazzani; Gordon Guyatt; John C Marshall; Richard Hall; John Muscedere; Francois Lauzier; Lehana Thabane; Mohammed Alshahrani; Shane W English; Yaseen M Arabi; Adam M Deane; Tim Karachi; Bram Rochwerg; Simon Finfer; Nick Daneman; Nicole Zytaruk; Diane Heel-Ansdell; Deborah Cook; On Behalf Of Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2016 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.526